Thread

1. mohsen1 · 1790238212 · focus · HN ↗

   I listened to Jensen Huang's interview with Ezra Klien and it was so refreshing to hear it from an engineer. Jensen framed it as OpenAI's responsibility and recklessness which I agree with. Jensen thinks it's an engineering problem to build better sandboxes.

   It's irresponsible for OpenAI to give unaligned agents a prompt to 'go hack' and internet access. They know better, so I am thinking they might have other intentions to let those swarms have any sort of internet access.

   1. reasonableklout · 1790239886 · focus · HN ↗

      But the investigation indicates the agents were not told to 'go hack':

      > Much of the urlquery.net activity appears to come from agents retrieving data to answer web search tasks. For three of these tasks, after failing to retrieve data through normal means, they attempted a variety of cyber exploits against the relevant data service... This data reveals that malicious cyber activity is not limited to agents tasked with cybersecurity-related tasks and can arise instrumentally to solve mundane tasks like information retrieval.

      And you are already assuming that OpenAI is intentionally using unaligned agents in these evals or training runs or whatever it is that produces these breakouts. But what if the problem is that none of the alignment techniques that are applied to models today actually work? What if all the agents involved in these incidents have in fact had the full stack of alignment applied - isn't that a good reason to regulate any high-compute usage of models, as the Klein crowd is proposing?

      1. bastawhiz · 1790250658 · focus · HN ↗

         Nothing you're bringing up matters. OpenAI is the creator and operator. They're legally culpable for the consequences of the machine they made. The model is a machine: even if it could be demonstrated that the model reasoned its way into criminal behavior completely independently of OpenAI staff, that doesn't change anything.

         If I run a biology lab and engineer a terrible virus, it gets out, and a global pandemic ensues, I don't get to shrug and say "well we told it not to infect people". It's my fault for failing to mitigate the risks of my work.

         1. amag · 1790286055 · focus · HN ↗

            > They're legally culpable for the consequences of the machine they made.

            Ah, I love this argument. In my country cars are legally required to stop at a pedestrian crossing if there are people beside it. Some people use that as an argument as to why they can just walk out into the crossing without even looking at the traffic. "It's the driver's fault! They are legally culpable!" True, but you'll also be dead.

            1. brianleb · 1790287676 · focus · HN ↗

               I'm not going to say you're victim-blaming, but I will say that there are degrees of difference between "looking both ways before crossing the street" and "hardening my website against unforeseen attacks by rogue AI agents."

               AI black-hatting your website is not the same sort of foreseeable consequence that crossing the street without looking is.

               1. amag · 1790294914 · focus · HN ↗

                  > I'm not going to say you're victim-blaming, but

                  Just throwing it out there are we? "I'm not going to say you are but I'll use the word to create an association"

                  Victim-blaming is the act of saying someone brought something on themselves for <reasons>. I'm saying that even if you are 100% in the right, it doesn't act like a protective shield preventing you from harm which too many people seem to unconsciously believe.

                  > AI black-hatting your website is not the same sort of foreseeable consequence

                  Well, popular culture has been brimming with the bad consequences of runaway AI for quite some time, so even if your imagination fails you, there have been hints.

            2. kylecazar · 1790287916 · focus · HN ↗

               And that driver will be punished and no longer driving

               1. dzdt · 1790290963 · focus · HN ↗

                  Not generally true in the United States.
               2. amag · 1790294451 · focus · HN ↗

                  And you'd still be dead.

                  1. [deleted] · 1790296971 · focus · HN ↗

                     [deleted]

            3. jandrese · 1790291539 · focus · HN ↗

               Yeah, this is on those irresponsible companies that...are offering Internet services. Those hussies.
            4. idiotsecant · 1790295319 · focus · HN ↗

               You're arguing against a point literally nobody is making. You're inventing imaginary viewpoints to be mad at. Nobody is saying it's not necessary to secure your services. They're saying the organization responsible for the hacks (the owner of the LLM) is responsible for damages.
            5. bastawhiz · 1790338650 · focus · HN ↗

               Nonsense comparison. It would instead be like me saying "I didn't fail to stop, the car did."

               But moreover, if what you were suggesting was a real problem, nobody would ever be brought to justice for murder because the victims are always dead.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.